Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Zoe Folley, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4877, E-mail: zoe.folley@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS PDF 64 KB To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992. See attached note from the Monitoring Officer.
Minutes: No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 50 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 27th August 2015.
Minutes: That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 August 2015 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the inclusion of Councillor Muhammad Ansar Mustaquim in the list of apologies
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS To RESOLVE that:
1) in the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and
2) in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED that:
1) In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and
2) In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision
|
|
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE PDF 94 KB To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance.
|
|
Proposal:
The demolition and redevelopment with four buildings: Building G1, a podium with two towers of 10 - 38 storeys and of 12 - 44 storeys; Building G2, a four floor podium with two towers of 34 and 38 storeys inclusive of podium; Building G3, a tower rising to 44 storeys; and Building G4, a four floor podium with a tower of 31 storeys inclusive of podium.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement , conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Councillor Danny Hassell (Chair)
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the demolition and redevelopment of the site.
He explained that the application was initially considered at the 4 June 2015 meeting of the Committee where Members deferred the consideration of the application for a site visit and to address concerns about the scheme. The application was brought back to the Committee on 21 July 2015 where Members, having considered the additional information, were minded to not to accept the scheme due to concerns over:
· Insufficient provision of affordable housing and the affordability of the family sized intermediate units. · Lack of supporting infrastructure to accommodate the density of the scheme in particularly the additional car parking and servicing from the development.
Nasser Farooq, (Deputy Team Leader, Planning Services, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. He reminded Members of the site location and surrounding developments, the proposed layout, height of the scheme, the number of units and the proposed new school.
In relation to the affordable housing, it was noted that according to the viability appraisal, the maximum amount that the scheme could provide had been secured and that the 3 bed intermediate units would be affordable in line with the Greater London Authority (GLA) affordability criteria. However, in view of the concerns about the affordability of the units, the application had been amended to omit 19 of the three bed intermediate units and to replace these with a range of smaller units within the same tenure. The proposed rent levels for the units were clarified. It was also clarified that the 3- 4 bed affordable units would be delivered at social rent and that this had been factored into the viability appraisal.
In relation to highways, whilst the width of the proposed servicing route remained the same, Officers still considered that it was appropriate for servicing. In support of this, the applicant had provided information showing likely usage of this route during peak hours. Transport for London and LBTH Highways had reviewed this information and considered that it was acceptable. The servicing would be conditioned which would include details of servicing hours to avoid peak hours.
It was also pointed out that the level of car parking fell short of the maximum allowed in policy for the density proposed.
As a result, Officers remained of the view that the scheme should be granted permission. However, if Members were minded to refuse the scheme, they were directed to the three suggested reason in the deferred report.
In response to questions, Officers clarified the proposed rent levels for the social rent units that excluded service charges. The rents would be ensured in perpetuity and controlled by way of a S106 obligation.
The viability report had been tested, based on the premises that the 3-4 four bed affordable units would be delivered as social rent (which it always had been). The report was found to be sound. There would be opportunities to reassess ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Land at 160-166 Chrisp Street (PA/15/00039) PDF 4 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings on the site and redevelopment to provide new buildings ranging from three to twelve storeys to provide 254 residential units (comprising 99 x 1 bed; 100 x 2 bed; 51 x 3 bed: 4 x 4 bed), together with associated car parking, amenity space, child playspace, gym and infrastructure works (REVISED DESCRIPTION)
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and redevelopment to provide new buildings ranging from three to twelve storeys to provide a mixed use development.
Shay Bugler, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report and update. The application was originally presented to the Committee on 27th August 2015, where Members were minded to not to accept the scheme due to concerns over:
(i) Height bulk mass; (ii) Impact on amenity of neighbouring properties; (iii) The lack of a study on the impact upon the social infrastructure; (iv) The density; and (v) Shortfall of play space.
Since that meeting, the applicant had made a number of material changes to the scheme to address the above issues. As a result, the application was being resubmitted to the Committee as a new application in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.
The Committee were advised of the key features of the scheme in terms of the site location, character of the area including the new residential developments nearby, the public transport links and the existing use of the site.
The Committee were also advised of the changes to the scheme to address the concerns in terms of the reduction in units, the provision of addition family units (with 25 in the affordable target tenure), the reduction in height to better respond to the area and reduce the impact on amenity and the increase in child play space. The level of affordable housing remained at 35%.
A further round of consultation on the revised application had been carried out and the outcome of this noted. None of the original respondents had raised concerns.
Officers were still of the view that the development responded well to the local area (given the materials, scale, the variations in height and the recent changes to the scheme). The site had good public transport links and showed no signs of overdevelopment. The impacts on amenity would be minor in nature. Given these points, the density of the scheme could be supported.
Careful consideration had been given to the impact on local infrastructure. Taking into account the capacity analysis of local schools and healthcare facilities, it was considered based on the expert advice that there was sufficient capacity in the area to accommodate the development.
In summary, Officers remained of the view that the scheme should be granted planning permission. However, if Members were minded to refuse the scheme, they were drawn to the suggested reasons for refusal in the Committee report.
In response to questions, Officers highlighted the contributions for education and the number of recently created school places. Pat Watson (Head of Building Development Childrens and Adults Resources) also highlighted the factors taken into account when planning school places across the Borough that included population forecasts from planned developments. She also pointed out that there would be a number of new schools coming forward including the new Bromley Hall ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings that range in height from 3 to 14 storeys containing 153 units including 28 undercroft and surface car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings ranging in height containing for a mixed use development.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Catherine O'Mahony (Aqua Vista Development) Andy Ager (Silver Wharf Development) spoke in opposition to the scheme. Whilst supporting the development of the site to address anti social behaviour (asb) they objected to the scheme on the following grounds:
· Height and density of the scheme in relation to the surrounding area. · That the scheme conflicted with the Council’s polices that stated that developments in this area should be low rise and low density unless there were good reasons why they shouldn’t be. This had not been demonstrated. · Loss of light to neighbouring properties. Many of the neighbouring properties were single aspect properties and would lose a lot of light. · Loss of privacy due to the position of the windows and balconies that faced neighbouring properties. · Increased sense of enclosure. · Lack of consultation by the developers, specifically with the units located behind the site. A site visit should be arranged to see how it was possible to exclude these households from the consultation and the assessment. · Loss of views to Canary Wharf and Bartlett Park. · A low rise scheme would address the concerns, protect the setting of area and comply with planning policy.
In response to Members questions, the speakers clarified their concerns about the height of the scheme, the impact from this on the surrounding area and the lack consultation by the developer. They expressed support for a low to medium density scheme at this site with taller developments nearer Chrisp Street as originally promised.
Krystian Groom (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application. He spoke about the extensive nature of the consultation with residents and Officers. This included individual letters to surrounding residents, door step canvassing, stakeholder and consultation events and engagement with schools and the health services. As a result, the applicant had reduced the height, massing and increased the affordable housing within the scheme. As stated in the report, the scheme makes best use of a brown field site without leading to overdevelopment. This benefits of the scheme were explained.
In response to questions, he explained that consultation was carried out at both pre and post submission stage as detailed in the Statement of Community Involvement document. There was genuine support for the scheme. At this point, Officers reminded Members that the Localism Act 2011 required developers to engage and consult the community. It was up to the Committee to decide how much weight should be put on the developers consultation. However, it was suggested that more weight should be given to the Council’s consultation that could be more easily evidenced.
The speaker went on to report that the developer had worked closely with the health centre to facilitate it’s request for further funding to expand. He also answered ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
|
2 Trafalgar Way, London (PA/15/02668) PDF 471 KB Proposal:
Application for Deed of Variation to section 106 agreement dated 10 Nov 2009 ref PA/08/01321 (as amended by a Deed of Modification dated 9th December 2014), ref: PA/14/01771
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to APPROVE a modification under s106A of the 1990 Planning Act of the 2009 Agreement (as modified by the 2014 Agreement) subject to any direction by The London Mayor and the prior completion of a second deed of modification to secure planning obligations.
Additional documents: Minutes: Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item for a deed of variation to the section 106 agreement dated 10 Nov 2009 ref PA/08/01321.
Jermaine Thomas (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. He explained the background to the application. In March 2015, the Applicant submitted an application under a new provision known as Section 106B to change the affordable housing requirements of the 2014 and the 2009 permission to reduce the off-site contribution and to remove the 66 on site affordable units. The Council’s Viability Consultants have carried out a robust assessment and agree with the developer that the 2014 scheme was unviable with the current affordable housing requirement.
However, the application was refused in April 2015 on the basis that it did not represent a stalled scheme and that an alternative viable scheme has planning permission and is capable of being built. .
The applicant had since submitted an appeal against the refusal to be determined at a Public Hearing scheduled for November 2015. The possible outcomes of the appeal were noted.
As part of the process of planning for the hearing, the applicant and the Council have met to explore ways to provide a good level of affordable housing without compromising the viability of the scheme, by agreeing a variation to the current legal agreement under Section 106A.
One option considered, that was the subject of this application, was that the applicant would remove entirely the onsite requirement for affordable housing but would increase the off-site contribution.
The table in the committee report showed a clear comparison between the consented schemes and the proposal.
The application complied with policy given the results of the viability assessments, that it would deliver additional affordable housing in the Borough and that the contribution met the relevant tests in policy.
In view of the issues, Officers were recommending that the variation be approved.
In response, some Member questioned the need for the proposal given the market value of the proposed units within the scheme. It was also questioned whether the proposal represented a fair exchange and why, given the nature of the amendment, it could be considered a variation.
In response to these points, it was reported that, if approved, it was likely that the parallel appeal would be withdrawn. However if the appeal proceeded, the applicant’s offer and the Council’s decision on the Section 106A variation would be a material consideration.
The Greater London Authority have been consulted and have confirmed that they do not wish to make any further comments.
In response to further questions, Officers explained the issues that would be taken to account at the appeal. It was also pointed out that given the difficulties with delivering affordable housing on the site due to the site constraints, this was a unique case.
In conclusion, Members noted the need for affordable housing in the Borough and that there were a number of other scheme coming forward that would provide contributions for the ... view the full minutes text for item 6.3 |
|